EVENTS

Idaho, too?

In her 57-page decision, Dale stated, "Idaho’s Marriage Laws withhold from them a profound and personal choice, one that most can take for granted. By doing so, Idaho’s Marriage Laws deny same-sex couples the economic, practical, emotional, and spiritual benefits of marriage, relegating each couple to a stigmatized, second-class status. Plaintiffs suffer these injuries not because they are unqualified to marry, start a family, or grow old together, but because of who they are and whom they love."

Tweet one: Headline: “Fischer of American Family Association calls for Idaho to revolt against U.S. government”

Tweet two: “Black people already have full rights: They can use their same-skin schools, restaurants, and water fountains, just like the rest of us!”

Tweet three: “Are we a nation of laws or a nation of tyrannical judges wielding gavels like sledgehammers”? Fischer asks this like there is a difference. I imagine that he only opposes the judiciary when he disagrees with their decisions. Fancy that.

Poor, poor paranoid homophobic bigots. They are finding that there is nothing in the constitution that allows them to discriminate against a class of people. And they are running out people to discriminate against. I feel sorry for anyone who can only feel better than others by legislating the “others” to second class status. They haven’t/can’t learned anything.

Gays in Idaho already have full marriage equality: they can marry one non-relative opposite-sex adult like everybody else.

True enough. Nonetheless, today’s decision was a victory for all people of Idaho. Heterosexuals may now settle down with a same-sex mate, same as the gays, without fear of the state treating them as second class citizens. Mr. Fischer should cherish his new found freedom.

Gays in Idaho already have full marriage equality: they can marry one non-relative opposite-sex adult like everybody else.

So if you made it the law that you could only marry one non-relative same-sex different-race adult Fischer wouldn’t have a problem with that? Because I’m thinking some changes to the law need to be explored.

Idaho like most states has it’s share of wackadoodles. Besides Fisher, recall Randy Weaver, and Pro-Life (yes that is his name) who ran for the House of Representatives, Senate and now plans to run for the governorship (fortunately he has been too crazy even for Idaho at least so far). I saw him in a past Senate debate, he is entertaining if nothing else.

Gays in Idaho already have full marriage equality: they can marry one non-relative opposite-sex adult like everybody else.

I find it very confusing when married people have the same initials. Thus I’m going to propose a law that it is illegal for two people to marry if their first names both begin with the same letter. This isn’t unconstitutional or a violation freedoms as there are plenty of other people whose name don’t start with the same letter one can choose to marry instead.

@ Aldente #7 he’s complaining because he can’t use the state to get in other people’s busbusiness. As shown by his tweets, he can still be an bigoted POS, no tyrannical laws have gotten in his way.
This is what makes me sick, we as a society have nothing to loose from gay rights, they don’t concern me so I’m mostly passive about them and I know I’m lazy and not a great human for that; but to be against them, to put the time and effort to avoid equality for a section of our society, that is some evil shit.

@Al dente #7 Fischer did not lose his right to be a hating POS (as shown by his tweets). He complains because the state didn’t want to join him in his hateful ways.
I’m aware of my own lack of involvement in this because I have nothing to gain or lose, some I’m lazy and not great human; but to actively fight against equality is pure evil.

Bryan Fischer is totally right. We can’t have judges overturning laws willy nilly, and I’m sure Bryan Fischer will support the new law I’m shopping out to legislators that strips Bryan Fischer and his immediate family of all their rights, and declares that they may not engage in free speech, free exercise of religion, guns, and anything else under penalty of death. I’m sure he’d be totally cool with that, as long as it was passed in the state legislature.

At least there is one area, perhaps the only one, where progressive ideas are winning decisively. But I’m sure there will be a backlash. Roe v. Wade has lead to a non-stop 40+ year backlash ever since.

Fischer’s side is losing – as it deserves to – and of course he’s losing his shit. I hope he and his ilk live to see all 50 states achieve equality and live long enough to see all of their petty hatreds crushed into fucking dust by judicial “sledgehammers”.

It must be frustrating for these people. All their life they’ve been told that the constitution supports their bigotry; that the way they think is the one and only American Way. Now, suddenly everything they thought was settled and done is thrown into question. They’re not handling the shock very well and many of them are just in straight up denial about it.

I’ll be running in memorial day 5k sponsored by Chik-fil-a. Our state is among the many with a same-sex marriage ban. I’ll be wearing Pride colors. Yes it’s going to cost $25 to run in the 5k, but I’m getting my ultra-conservative family to sponsor me. So it’s like a two-fer! They won’t know I’ll be wearing the colors, so they’ll have to live knowing that they paid to support my protest of the bigoted ass company and its supporters who want to perpetually trample the rights of the homosexual veterans they claim are the most deserving of our respect and gratitude. Fuck ‘em all.

By my count, that’s 25 states with judicial affirmation of same sex marriage. Half the states, and easily more than half the population. Quick wiki checks on the biggest states that still deny same sex marriage (Florida, Pennsylvania) shows that there is majority popular support, if not political.

Fischer is complaining because his right to be a hating homophobe is being denied.

In no way is this true. His right to be a bigot was never protested. His right to impose his bigotry on other people through legislative action is what is being denied.

@Goodbye Enemy Janine #19

I really hate the term “opposite sex”.

I’ve always thought of “opposite sex”, as a case of, erm… a certain juxtaposition of genitals, a certain number of spacial configurations involving among other things, both penises and vaginas. I mean that’s the only sense it really makes as a term, and that’s the only real complaint there is against “same sex”. Aknowledging the existance of people with ambiguous or multiple genitals, is there as much of a problem with the “genital binary” as with gender binary?

As a foreigner i’m only superficially familiar with the entire story but i remember following to some degree the developments with prop 8 and watching homophobia seemigly consume an entire nation. When it was put down as the deceased, putrid thing it was and the first states started to respond by coming around to the other side and “don’t ask, don’t tell” was repealed, etc, i laughed my arse off. It’s so fucking fantastic to see marriage equality spread through the states like a wildfire! I’ve thoroughly enjoyed watching it happen in europe as one country follows another, since it all started when i was a teenager suffering the consequences of an homophobic society. When my own country became the third to achieve minimum fucking levels of civilized morality it was absolutely clear to me that there was no stopping this, it was all a matter of time :)

When an elected magistrate of the State declares a law to be unconstitutional, on what grounds does Fischer turn round and declare their ruling unconstitutional? Bigots need to learn that “unconstitutional” is not a catch-all phrase for “I don’t like it”. Fuck Fischer. Hooray for Judge Dale.

Bigots need to learn that “unconstitutional” is not a catch-all phrase for “I don’t like it”.

But see, that’s exactly what they’ve been told their entire lives. Works just the same as e.g. “unbiblical”. If you’re convince that you’re right and if the document in question is also right, then clearly the document must agree with what you think. No need to read it; you already know what it says. If someone can point to a part of the document that appears to contradict you, it must have been taken out of context.

Like most bigots, Fischer’s support for ‘law’ is conditional on that law enshrining his ‘right’ to be a prejudiced arsehat without anyone calling him on it. I would bet money that he is also the kind of constitution-worshipper who has probably never read, and certainly never understood the document.

——————————————————————————————————————–

mesh @ 10;

Gotta love that Orwellian doublespeak: freedom is tyranny, discrimination is equality, and upholding the nation’s laws is unconstitutional.

Excactly.

——————————————————————————————————————–

Khantron, the alien that only loves @ 11;

So if you made it the law that you could only marry one non-relative same-sex different-race adult Fischer wouldn’t have a problem with that? Because I’m thinking some changes to the law need to be explored.

The nation would resound to the curious muffled ‘splat’ sounds produced by the heads of bigots asploding en masse. Which would neatly solve our problem.

———————————————————————————————————————-

And ck @ 20;

Bryan Fischer is totally right. We can’t have judges overturning laws willy nilly, and I’m sure Bryan Fischer will support the new law I’m shopping out to legislators that strips Bryan Fischer and his immediate family of all their rights, and declares that they may not engage in free speech, free exercise of religion, guns, and anything else under penalty of death. I’m sure he’d be totally cool with that, as long as it was passed in the state legislature.

I am pretty sure that Fischer is allergic to internal logical consistency in arguments…

I am right beacuse… well, because I am. The Constitution is right, because it’s the Constitution. Therefore, the Constitution must agree with me. What do you mean it doesn’t? Of course it does. You must have misread it.

Depressingly, I think you may have analysed their “logic” perfectly :(

Gays in Idaho already have full marriage equality: they can marry one non-relative opposite-sex adult like everybody else.

Bigots like Fischer never consider the effect on those of us who married a homosexual because their religious upbringing forced them to internalize and dismiss their own feelings. Having been the spouse of someone who for years lied to herself, I know. Now that we are divorced and she is willing to live her actual desires, we are both so much happier.

I am a huge advocate for marriage equality, and not just because of my personal experience. People deserve to live as themselves and receive equal treatment.

Often, I wonder what social and fiscal conservatives have in common that sustains their political partnership. It’s people like this Fischer guy that remind me why there is such a significant overlap.

Call Fischer a bigot, an asshole, a closed minded, hateful person all you like. Those labels apply, and are more than fair. What I see standing out, right now, though, is his greed. He and his ilk are social misers, applying value to the things they have based on who *doesn’t* have them. That’s why these social conservatives frequently bring up how the “sanctity” of marriage is being stained: They value their marriage, in part, *because* others can’t have it.

They fight so hard to deny others something that costs them nothing because they’re greedy, miserable, power-tripping wastes of flesh who get off on nothing more than telling people “no”, and that’s a blanket statement that applies to both “social” and “fiscal” conservatives.

He and his ilk are social misers, applying value to the things they have based on who *doesn’t* have them. That’s why these social conservatives frequently bring up how the “sanctity” of marriage is being stained: They value their marriage, in part, *because* others can’t have it.

You’re the only person aside from myself that I’ve seen who notices this. I’ve compared this twisted economy of social value to medieval sumptuary laws; only we get to wear these fashions and by law you can’t because they’re only for us go away.

What the he[ck] is wrong with “gay marriage”? Isn’t every marriage supposed to be happy? “Gay” is just a synonym for “happy”. Why are the heteros so yielding to the homosexuals theft of the word “gay” to be euphemism for ‘same-sex coupling’?
Oh I know, that’s why the “conventional” marriage advocates object to the “Ghey” marriage, cuz the gheys want the happiness to be only to their own and not to the “breeders”. [that Other-thread (about Brits), is making me use slurs all the time]
I just have to repeat myself: _Marriage_ ::= 1 person + 1 person. (Period)
Why should ANYone care which two people enter into the marriage arrangement?

We went through a precursor back in the 60’s when people started having “roommates” of opposite sexes. Then, the trepidation was, “how can you live together, not married?” So two of the same sex “living together”, not married, was totally ignored, and opposite sex living together not married was scandalous. THAT controversy eventually became accepted (almost required, “Live together first, before getting married, to verify compatibility, etc”). We have now the mirror-image: opposite sex living together; acceptable, same sex marrying; scandalous.
Doesn’t History exist to learn from it, to keep from repeating it? Isn’t the ’60’s History now? When will They learn, I try my best to learn, while they seem to be stuck in the past. Is mine just an attitude of arrogance, i.e. that, I think I know better than everyone else? Gawd I hope not.

Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaidensays

In my superhero RPG I have a villain that disguises her identity in shapeless black robes and uses a tiny wood hammer to do damage as if with a metal-headed, two-handed, 36 pound bludgeon – multiplied by 2 when attacking Christians.

Regarding the term “opposite” sex, isn’t the problem that it ignores everyone, not just intersex people?

My interpretation of “opposite” in this case is that it suggests that women and men have diametrically opposed abilities and outlooks that are biologically determined. Men are strong and the opposite of strong is weak. Men are tough and the opposite of tough is caring. Men are logical and the opposite of logical is emotional. Etcetera.

It’s just not accurate. It ignores individual variety as well as traits that are held by both men and women.

And if you are looking for a replacement term for “opposite-sex marriage”, I think I once heard someone refer to “mixed-sex marriage”. Would that work?

I personally avoid the sex-based references entirely, as I cannot see chromosomes or people’s genitals through their clothes. Same-gender, mixed-gender. I do dislike “gay marriage”, as not everyone who marries someone of their gender is gay, and it reinforces the whole “bi people either are too slutty to ever marry or just end up in a straight marriage” thing.

I’m non-binary. I have no idea what the “opposite” gender to mine would be. AMAB agender?

In 2006, Idaho voters, by a nearly two-to-one margin, approved something called Amendment 2, which prohibited the state from legally recognizing same-sex unions. Following yesterday’s court ruling, Gov. C.L. “Butch” Otter (R) vowed to appeal, citing his commitment to “upholding the will of the people.”

There is, of course, a widely held belief that the issue will inevitably have to be resolved by the U.S. Supreme Court, and with that in mind, Judge Dale yesterday seemed to remind Justice Antonin Scalia of what he said in 2003. As Ryan Reilly explained:

Scalia at the time was trying to warn that the court’s decision against an anti-sodomy law would call into question laws based on moral choices, like same-sex marriage (and, he wrote, bigamy, adult incest and prostitution). He wrote that “ ‘preserving the traditional institution of marriage’ is just a kinder way of describing the State’s moral disapproval of same-sex couples.”

Dale cited that Scalia quote in her opinion on Tuesday, using the conservative justice’s words to undermine Idaho’s argument that the law was about preserving traditional civil marriage as an institution, and that any discriminatory effects of the law were incidental.

As for how Idaho fits into the recent trend, yesterday’s ruling is part of a larger pattern.

Just last week, for example, a court ruled against Arkansas’ anti-gay constitutional amendment. This came a month after a federal judge ordered Ohio to recognize same-sex marriages from other states. The month before that, a federal judge struck down Michigan’s ban on marriage equality.

dragon @ #53, your story reminds me so much of the dozens of troubling tales I’ve heard of young mormen men and women being pressured to marry a member of the “opposite sex” as if that would cure them of being gay.

Other than Catholic rather than Mormon, very much so.
Note there was no particular person who pressured her. Not even her parents. It was the entire culture of guilt and shame of sexuality that provided the pressure. At that point no person was needed to provide pressure.

Having not grown up in such an environment, and being somewhat young and naive, I had no way to recognize it at the time.

dragon @72, sorry you had to go through that. Sorry for your wife as well.

Being pressured by the entire culture is common, and that pressure is applied to young people when, as you say, they don’t have enough experience to recognize the false assumptions on which that pressure depends.

Between this and the Wisconsin judge who overturned voter ID laws, I’m worried conservatives might revive “judicial activism” as a talking point. Back when Fundie Watch was still around, I remember reading about a proposed bill that would allow people to overturn any judicial ruling by claiming it as judicial activism. Thankfully it didn’t go anywhere, since it would’ve meant judges world risk being disbarred every single time they did their jobs.

In the meantime, though, I plan to go to Five Guys tomorrow so I can celebrate this decision with some Cajun fries made from imported Idaho potatoes!

Pennsylvania is likely up soon. The state’s argument is that plaintiffs aren’t hurt by not being allowed to marry because they aren’t allowed to marry. Hopefully the judge laughs at that.

You ever get the impression that the lawyers and the bureaucrats and even some of the politicians get up there and make these ridiculous cases for no other reason than because they have to save face for the state or governor in front of the vile side of the populace?

Gays in Idaho already have full marriage equality: they can marry one non-relative opposite-sex adult like everybody else.

For some reason they just can’t help but recycle failed arguments. That one didn’t work in Loving v. Virginia when it came to interracial marriage, but maybe it’ll just work if they just change the oppressed subject of the statement because then it’ll be totes different.

Judges ruling in favor of true equality?! Everybody knows they’re supposed to use their sledgehammer-gavels to beat down the oppressed; using them to smash down the wall of oppression is just too much!

Thank you for the link. The stories sound somewhat familiar to me, minus the LDS aspect. That is because I read and responded to a bunch of threads on StraightSpouse.org when I first went through the recovery from the divorce. It has been over 5 years now and I have adjusted pretty well.

I don’t think I have any lingering worries for myself. Just perspective that marriage equality, and an end to the discrimination, would be much better for all involved.